Keep in mind that the US already has existing debt approaching $150 trillion. That has to be paid for, too

Our system wouldn’t have to be set up exactly like France’s. We also wouldn’t be under the outside budget restrictions imposed by the EU. Keep in mind also that the U.S. government already spends a larger percentage of its GDP on healthcare than France, for less coverage and benefits to the people.

Regardless, I’m not interested in budget concerns here, but rather the morality of a single-payer system. The money issue is an important, but distinct, question.

Now, if under single payer, each individual gets a voucher to buy private insurance, then it would be possible.

That is effectively what Obamacare is now.

No it’s not. The vast majority of Americans are not even insured under ACA. And many in the individual market pay for their own.

Right. Obamacare lacks true universality to be single payer.

Correct, and it is still an unmitigated disaster that has driven healthcare prices up, forced people out of plans they liked, and tried to force people of faith to violate their religious free exercise rights.
Imagine how bad government authoritarian single payer would be.

Keep in mind that the US already has existing debt approaching $150 trillion. That has to be paid for, too

Our system wouldn’t have to be set up exactly like France’s. We also wouldn’t be under the outside budget restrictions imposed by the EU. Keep in mind also that the U.S. government already spends a larger percentage of its GDP on healthcare than France, for less coverage and benefits to the people.

Regardless, I’m not interested in budget concerns here, but rather the morality of a single-payer system. The money issue is an important, but distinct, question.

I think there is a morality question regarding redistributive taxation, but as long as government is in the position to dictate what is and isn’t covered (abortifacients, etc), who gets care and when, morality is not possible

Our system wouldn’t have to be set up exactly like France’s. We also wouldn’t be under the outside budget restrictions imposed by the EU. Keep in mind also that the U.S. government already spends a larger percentage of its GDP on healthcare than France, for less coverage and benefits to the people.

I will put my coverage and care up against any government controlled system.

Correct, and it is still an unmitigated disaster that has driven healthcare prices up, forced people out of plans they liked, and tried to force people of faith to violate their religious free exercise rights.
Imagine how bad government authoritarian single payer would be.

Throwing the word “authoritarian” in at every government action you don’t like is a sure way to prove it is bad.

The reason Obamacare is ineffective is precisely because it is a Frankenstein marriage of government-funded health care and private insurance. I am not surprised that it is having difficulty. What this proves is that we need to have actual single payer insurance, not this inbetween system that does neither well.

In any case, we are getting off the topic of this thread, which is the morality of a single payer health system. Note that morality is not tied to inefficiency or ineffectiveness. Those things, by themselves, do not make a system immoral.

Throwing the word “authoritarian” in at every government action you don’t like is a sure way to prove it is bad.

As soon as government has authority over it, it is authoritarian.

LeafByNiggle:

The reason Obamacare is ineffective is precisely because it is a Frankenstein marriage of government-funded health care and private insurance. I am not surprised that it is having difficulty. What this proves is that we need to have actual single payer insurance, not this inbetween system that does neither

It proves that government interference with the right to healthcare doesn’t work. What we need is a market based system that includes a healthy and robust charitable system to help those in need

If so then the scheme is not “single payer” and the result would be two-tier system: the wealthy who can afford private pay or private insurance and the rest of us. Is not that exactly what “single payer” advocates are trying to eliminate?

The Form 1040 MED can be filled out by the hospital or other medical provider; the IRS already has the necessary information on the person’s income to calculate the payment to the hospital or other provider and to send the payment immediately.

I find this to be a horrendous accusation against the American people, this charge that if government doesn’t take care of people it won’t happen. The accusation is that the American people don’t care about their neighbors, that they have to be forced to take care of their neighbors st the point of the government gun. It says that even those calling for single payer will turn their backs on people in need

the vast majority of the American people DO NOT need assistance in their healthcare. Even if it is appropriate for government to provide a safety net, that is the maximum it should do. There is no reason to compromise all Americans right to healthcare by converting it intravenous government power.

If so then the scheme is not “single payer” and the result would be two-tier system: the wealthy who can afford private pay or private insurance and the rest of us. Is not that exactly what “single payer” advocates are trying to eliminate?

It is better to have a two tier system where everyone at least has a tier to stand on, versus a system where some have no health care at all. I see nothing wrong with a two or three tier system, as long as each tier has a basic minimum catastrophic health insurance.

I find this to be a horrendous accusation against the American people, this charge that if government doesn’t take care of people it won’t happen. The accusation is that the American people don’t care about their neighbors…

Say rather that the American people are sometimes unable to take care of their neighbors. If you found out that one of your neighbors needed a heart-lung transplant that costs 1.1 million, even with the best of intentions I doubt that you and your neighbors could raise that much in donations.

… that they have to be forced to take care of their neighbors st the point of the government gun

Ideally, the government is an expression of the will of the people they represent. So in effect it is how Americans take care of their neighbors. Besides, there is nothing inherently immoral about a legitimate authority enforcing the will of the people. It is, according to the Catechism, a proper function of government. If we stop all government mandates then the government would be reduced to politely asking people to pay their taxes with no consequences if they don’t, and politely asking criminals to stop engaging in criminal behavior with no consequences if they refuse.

the vast majority of the American people DO NOT need assistance in their healthcare.

This is a silly reason not to offer health insurance. The whole concept of insurance is built on charging everyone for what only a few will ultimately need. If we had insurance for things that everyone needs, it would not be insurance.

Say rather that the American people are sometimes unable to take care of their neighbors. If you found out that one of your neighbors needed a heart-lung transplant that costs 1.1 million, even with the best of intentions I doubt that you and your neighbors could raise that much in donations.

I stand by what I said. It is a charge that Americans would intentionally turn their Backs on neighbors.
If. Government was not taking so much money in taxes, more money would be available. As has been said, we already spend great amounts on healthcare. Large private associations and charities such as the Church would help.
The vast amount of Americans don’t need help, and shouldn’t have their right to healthcare taken from them

It is better to have a two tier system where everyone at least has a tier to stand on, versus a system where some have no health care at all. I see nothing wrong with a two or three tier system, as long as each tier has a basic minimum catastrophic health insurance.

Isn’t, therefore, the argument for a “single payer” system an overreach since a public option and expanded Medicaid would meet the need for everyone to have catastrophic health insurance?